Evacuated

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

structural similarities between the Mosaic Law and the Laws of Hammurabi,

Very interesting, but not alarming. I am sure Moses Egyptian education would have exposed him to Hammurabi's code as well as whatever system existed in Egypt (although apparently it is not so clearly preseved for us as the Mesopotamian). There would be no need to "reinvent the wheel" in setting out a form and structure for a law code to govern the affairs of a nation at that time, would there?

I believe the only part of the Mosaic Law actually written by a non-human agency is the decalogue? Is there a similar listing of this nature in the Hammurabi code? 

Also, is there a similar comparison chart on sanctions? And how about matters of hygiene? 

I have just found a copy of the Code of Hammurabi in a 2nd hand book shop ( I love those places). Time to dust it off methinks!

 

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think a lot of people already know where this is headed

Trying to justify Hammurabi as the source for much of the Mosaic Law? Including the refuge city concept? (Believe me , this is only a guess.So I could be completely wrong!  It's not something I have researched...yet!)

3 hours ago, Cos said:

it appears that all you have for your belief is the ever shifting and inconsistent teaching of men who hide behind a magazine, with NO Scriptural backing.

Sadly, unsubstantiated opinion.

3 hours ago, Cos said:

Can “force/ power” have feelings, a mind and intellect? These are traits of a real Person not a thing

Repetition may emphasize, but, as with the similar, cathechismal assertion of such ideas by other historic groups, fails to establish truth. ¿<>< 

On 12/31/2017 at 9:01 AM, Cos said:

In your examples, when put into context they are apparent that a person or persons are intended,

The point of including themsurely?

On 12/31/2017 at 9:01 AM, Cos said:

Remember Mark tells us why Jesus charged those scribes with blaspheming against the Holy Spirit: it was because “they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit’”

which Mark records was "Beelzebub", as does Luke 11:19. Luke 11:20 shows that Jesus expelled demons by means of God's "finger" (Ex.8:19; Ex.31:18), not the finger of Beelzebub. The false attribution by the religionists was a sin against "the finger of God" and as such a brazen sin against the personal presence of Jehovah. (Even the Egyptian magicians recognised the "finger of God" which 1stCentury religionists did not).

The listing of personalizations in connection with holy spirirt may substantiate your personal view of it's nature, but is not of itself scriptural evidence of personality, any more than other examples of the same literary device in scripture discussed elsewhere. It appears your belief is core to your argument, not the scriptures, which you apparently present to merely support your belief. ¿<><

On 12/19/2017 at 4:27 AM, Anna said:

Definitely more women!

*** w14 8/15 p. 10 par. 19 What Is the Role of Women in Jehovah’s Purpose? ***
The small group of Bible Students has grown to some 8,000,000 Witnesses of Jehovah today (2015). More than 11,000,000 other individuals show interest in the Bible and our work by attending the annual Memorial of Jesus’ death. In most lands, the majority of those present are women. Also, women make up the greater number of over 1,000,000 full-time Kingdom proclaimers worldwide. God has indeed granted faithful women the privilege of participating in the fulfillment of the psalmist’s words: “Jehovah gives the command; the women proclaiming the good news are a large army.”—Ps. 68:11.

This is interesting because it shows that the potential for increase in the numbers of witnesses at present is also mostly female. However, I am sure it will even out somewhat in the resurrection.

I wonder what the male/female ratio on this forum is? Participation is likely majority female hands down with almost 11% of total postings by @Queen Esther alone.

On 1/15/2018 at 12:16 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did?

I agree with the comment by JWI on the speculative nature of scenarios in connection with the cities of refuge. I haven't investigated cities of refuge in a historical context simply because reliable information seems rather scant.

Apart from the setting out the provision in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua,, there doesn't appear to be any reference to the use of the provision in the Hebrew Scriptures, like for example, the cameo appearance of Ruth with reference to the provision of "levirate" marriage.

There is a lot of what I term as higher-critical gobbledegook on the matter, but really only of some academic interest (to me). Perhaps, rather like the Sabbath Year and Jubilee provisions, there was little adherence to the legislated procedure over the years. (Compare Jer.2:34 "Even your skirts are stained with the blood of the innocent poor ones, though I did not find them in the act of breaking in")

Anyway, with regard to TTH's comment, this manslayer, self assessesed as "guiltless", has rather missed the point. Where human blood has been shed there is no "guiltlessness" as the basis for the Mosaic provision makes clear at Genesis 9:5-6. Anyone of that opinion was not thinking in harmony with Jehovah God's view of the matter of shedding human blood in any circumstance, and would be putting themselves greatly at risk of an execution of judgement without mercy.

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'm going to remember this one in PERPETUITY !!!

I'll definitely add that to my REPERTOIRE!

Some people think the first description of a probable dinosaur fossil bone discovery can be found in a book written around 300 AD by the Chinese scholar Chang Qu.  He describes the finding of “dragon bones” at Wucheng, in what is now Sichuan Province (south-western China).

typewriter

Just now, Anna said:

NOOOO, you have misunderstood this whole thing. Me posting a link to JW.org is fine! See my reply to Ann O'Maly

You are Anna. The reply is to Ann (O'Maly). See what I mean? The posts don't even get read properly. Tut..Tut!

On 12/29/2017 at 1:05 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

This is a bona fide, unadulterated copy (honest)

On 12/29/2017 at 4:27 PM, Gone Fishing said:

Firstly, is the naming of theworldnewsmedia.org genuine?

On 12/29/2017 at 4:40 PM, Anna said:

No, it's not there of course. We would not do that. Here is the article:

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-april-2018/publications-personal-websites/

So, with regret Ann, you have demonstrated the reason for the Society's warning: "If the spiritual food passes through other channels, there is no guarantee that it has not been altered or contaminated." (I will resist posting the other two words).

Is it time for the forum to close? That's a decision for those who run it. But for any genuine Jehovah's Witnesses, it is time to say.... goodbye! 

In the short time I have been active here, I have gained a most useful insight into the thinking of a wide range of people, both favourably and unfavourably disposed. I have picked up a wealth of information on a whole range of topics I probably would not have been able to discuss anywhere else. I like to think I may have been able to contribute a little with 1096 upvotes of one type or another.

I have noted of late a more determined "anti" GB presence here, and I include the tendency of some to rather patronisingly treat them with disrespect. I suppose an inevitable price that is paid to have a tolerant, freedom of speech policy, but a sad reality of any freedom is that abuse by a few brings restriction for many!

So, to those of you with whom the interchange has been pleasant,

¡Te veo en el otro lado, espero!

And to those of you who felt otherwise, thanks for the time.

You may look for me, but this time I really have for good! 

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

What are your thoughts on this article?

Firstly, is the naming of theworldnewsmedia.org genuine?

8 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Many true words spoken about science

Trying to stretch this to 607BCE's scriptural support but it is eluding me. Perhaps you are showing how current world disorder fits what started in 1914CE, enabling a retrofit of 2520 yrs back to 607BCE?  Please clarify to stay on topic.

Your word "just" is the problem

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

No new light ;))

No "new light" in Bible                 Very good! 10/10. You have made a good start. Now repeat after me,  A....B....C....D.......

9 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

No congregation declaration of dfd or announcement of his came back to congregation. No calling for elders to establish judicial committee to prove his changed behaviour and regrets. Nothing more than he solely said, claim on the road far from home. And no witnesses of their conversation. Just between him and Father.

Nor did he say "Why didn't you phone first and let me know you were coming back? Now I have to take a day off to get some food in. Hopefully the supermarkets will have enough stock, else I can order on line for nextday delivery. And I don't know if the neighbours can come round. I'll just email them all anyway. Hop in, I'll give you a lift to the house!"

2 hours ago, Cos said:

It is impossible to blaspheme or sin against anything but a person

The scriptures clearly indicate that sinning against something counts as a sin against the one owning or represented by that thing:

• 1Cor 6:18: "whoever practices sexual immorality is sinning against his own body" (The individual whose body is sinned against)
• Lev 4:23:"a sin that he has committed against the commandment" (Jehovah, the one giving the commandment)
• 1 Sam 19:5 "why should you sin against innocent blood" (David, whose innocent blood would have been shed)
• Acts 25:8 "Neither against the Law of the Jews nor against the temple..have I committed any sin." (Jehovah, as it was His law and His temple)
• Lev 5:14 "unintentionally sinning against the holy things of Jehovah" (Jehovah, to whom the offerings were to be made in the manner He prescribed)
• Lev 5:16 "the sin he has committed against the holy place" (Jehovah, whose holy place it is)
• Mark 3:29 "But whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness" (Jehovah, in that the operation of His active force is attributed to Satan)

Of course, you have correctly defined the underlying reason for the difference in understanding these texts when you said:

2 hours ago, Cos said:

That would be only for someone who does not recognize the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person

To which, in connection with the alternative understanding you present, the only response can be "That would be only for someone who does not recognize the fact that the Holy Spirit is God's active force"

I am well thank you and I hope your other issues are being resolved satisfactorily.

5 hours ago, Queen Esther said:

What do you think about that rare story ?

It has a kind of tragic fascination about it. Amazing to think that it happened about 80 years ago! And that Lina is still alive.

She suffered from a condition known as "precocious puberty" 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty

Although the youngest documented case, she is by no means alone: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

Inerestingly, I spent a number years witnessing in an area with a high Afro-Carribean population. Many older people would cite a prophecy to say we were in the "last days" because the Bible said that then there would be "children having children". No-one could give a Bible verse for this, and of course I have never seen such a phrase in the Scripture. Usually I would respond with 2 Tim.3:3 where the "critical times" are charcterised by men  "having no natural affection"  as this would often be an element in the occurence of "children having children". But I have never found out where the idea orginated.

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

He accepted sons words and not asking nothing and not "investigate" about truthfulness and sincerity and change of attitude or about his motives!!    

Bible report say nothing about these

Me think we not on same planet???***!!!

Luke 15:21
Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy of being called your son.’
 

2 hours ago, Anna said:

I don't remember listing anything

19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

speculations, ideas and conjecture rather than facts and truths

This looks like a list to me

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There's a new kid in town.

That's an insult to kids!

only amazon.com

1 hour ago, Anna said:

what we have now is good enough for the present time, but it could be replaced by something else in the future

Exactly! 

1 hour ago, Anna said:

it would be more truthful to call this spiritual food speculations, ideas and conjecture rather than facts and truths.

You are not specific about what you are describing as "this spiritual food" here. But, just taking your remark generally, I cannot see a problem with any of the five items you list, as long as they are kept in their place and their relative importance understood. In other words, there is no need to "either/or" them.

I believe we will be in the postion described in scripture as needing the way of truth expounded more correctly for some considerable time to come, if not forever. Don't you?

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Jesus did; Peter did; Paul did. But it's no wonder so many missed it, with all this emphasis on dates.

Please!. We all know what Jesus Peter and Paul said.

And as for this continual regurgitating of old spiritual food, isn't a bit like trying to eat yesterday's manna? It was good at the time, and certainly did what Jehovah wanted it to do...then. But today? Don't we find it's just like the manna of old which , when saved beyond it's current need,  just "bred worms and stank"?
 

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

"unity" in the cause of "truth" or of mere conformity to a false teaching?

If the suggestion here is that the unity experienced by Jehovah's Witnesses today is based on conformity to a "false teaching", then any of Jehovah's Witnesses who support such a view are standing on a very thin ice veneer over an abyss of apostasy.

So my last exasperated appeal on this much berated subject:

The year 607BCE is seen by Jehovah's Witnesses as the coincidence of 2 events: 

1. The desolation of the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judah.
2. The deposition of a king ruling as a representative of the family line of David, actually sitting on Jehovah's throne.

It is also seen as the starting point of 2 prophetic periods:

1. A period of desolation of the city of Jerusalem and it's environs (Judah)
2. A period of absence from the earthly scene of a King ruling on Jehovah's throne

The first period, is reckoned to span a 70 year period, terminating in the year 537 BCE with the implementing of a Persian decree allowing for the release of Jewish exiles and restoration of the literal City of Jerusalem as a center of worship.

The second period, otherwise known as the "Gentile Times", is reckoned to span a 2520 year period, terminating in the year 1914CE with Jehovah's decree placing rulership of the earth into the hands of Jesus Christ.

This simple construct has had much Scriptural and secular argumentation brought forth to support both it and many subordinate dependencies of understanding. These, to borrow a phrase, have been considerably "rehashed" elsewhere, as have opposing or alternative views. In fact, despite the ridiculing, battering, dissecting, and all but obliterating of what is commonly held by Jehovah's Witnesses on this matter, no one has yet come up with a simple alternative statement of belief that makes any real sense. Is this too much to ask??? (And no prizes to anyone just repeating the statements in a negative form!!)